I had not seen this coming.
As a veteran – if hardly by hard- or even medium-core Bayreuth standards – of two
previous performances of Stefan Herheim’s production of Parsifal (2008
and 2011),
I found myself nevertheless quite taken aback by how much, especially during
the first act, I fancied I was seeing for the first time. Some of it I suspect
I was, for not only does the Bayreuth Festival pride itself upon its Werkstatt (workshop) concept, in which
productions will develop from year to year, Herheim’s questing, dialectical
directorial approach especially lends itself to such reinvention – as, of
course, does Wagner’s dramaturgy and compositional method, not the least of his
legacies for twentieth- and twenty-first-century serialism. Convinced as I was
that there had been a shift of emphasis, at least, looking back upon other
early reports, I suspect that this was at least as much a matter of my
approaching the staging differently, for whatever reasons, partly relative
familiarity no doubt, but perhaps not just that. Herheim’s multi-layered,
almost geological, method is not dissimilar to Wagner’s own, which helps
explain the extraordinary ‘fit’ between the two artists. This production needs
to be seen many times, and now, at last, it can be, since this very performance
was being filmed for broadcast and DVD release. Yours truly might even be seen
upon it, when the mirror is held up to the Festspielhaus audience; let us hope
not.

The German historical-political
and Parsifal-reception
levels of the production are by now celebrated. (I have written about them at
some length in previous reports.) If anything, I felt them underplayed during
the first act, though that may, as I said, have been more a matter of my
personal reception. At any rate, what took me aback on this occasion was the
depth of what I shall call the psychoanalytical level to the staging. Indeed, such was the overwhelming experience
of the latter that I started to feel in some respects a little disappointed,
protective of my earlier experiences, almost a loyalist to what I imagined,
rightly or wrongly, to have been Herheim I and II, rather as if I were an Old-
or even New-Bayreuth loyalist, missing my Wieland Wagner, Hans Knappertsbusch,
or earlier. Herheim III began to seem a meta-production, as much a re-imagining
of its earlier incarnations as of Parsifal
itself. Dreams and childhood come to the fore, also, just as intriguingly,
religious experience and its psychopathology. (Remember Nietzsche and Thomas
Mann?) The third scene in particular, with its priest, incense – Nietzsche’s
accusation of Wagner bowing before the Cross re-examined – and, most
shockingly, circumcision of the infant who may or may not ‘be’ a young
Parsifal, offers almost as much food for thought as Wagner’s own Feuerbachian
inversion of the elements. (That alone ought surely to disqualify the absurd
custom, still observed in certain conservative circles, of pious refraining
from applause.)

The violence of the deed of
circumcision could hardly have been more topical, given the recent legal
controversy over infant genital mutilation in Germany; and yet, it also pointed
to something older, deep-seated, and of course very much part of the Rezeptionsgeschichte strand: the
question of whether anti-Semitism is expressed in Wagner’s drama. Amfortas’s cry
of pain – incidentally, or rather far from incidentally, he now seems far more
central to the act, indeed to the drama as a whole, arguably more so even than
Parsifal – jolted us from our complacent ‘knowledge’ of the work, and also
pointed forward to Kundry’s scream of laughter. Christ, whatever Wagner may
have hoped, must also have undergone the procedure. Detlef Roth’s commanding
assumption of the role of Amfortas, still more impressive than in earlier
years, undoubtedly assisted in this transformation of emphasis. What is the
relationship between Amfortas and the young Parsifal, whom we see or think we
see at various stages? Does the latter imagine the former, indeed the drama as
a whole, in at least some sense? That is too easy an answer, and is complicated
by the retelling of German history, but it is a questioning strand
nevertheless. Notably, Gurnemanz addresses the boy Parsifal at the end of the
act. Even the video despatch of young men to war (the Great War) seems as much
a product of twisted familial relations – consider the inculcation of
patriotism in English as well as German schools – as of great power politics.

Kundry as governess – as well,
earlier and later, as Herzeleide – adds a creepy, nursery, Turn of the Screw-like aspect to the story, especially when,
therafter, the grown Parsifal possesses her on the bed that is both setting for
and generative of so much of the action. It is there, of course, that the child
is born, literally centre stage, the delivery itself a powerful moment, as well
as intricately linked to the various stages of childhood, adolescence,
adulthood, dotage, and death, both personal and political, we witness enacted.
The enactment on stage of Amfortas’s wounding during Gurnemanz’s narration at
first seems a little too literal, but psychoanalytical implications and
consequences, some mentioned above, soon manifest themselves, so that one
realises that such development and consideration of such development are
actually a good part of the point. The late-nineteenth-century (Mann’s ‘bad
nineteenth-century?’) setting suggests, amongst other things, a family saga: Buddenbrooks spiced with Nietzsche.

Much of that, however, was,
at least for me, called into question by the second act, in which the political
reasserted itself with a vengeance. The delicious representation of the Flowermaidens
as orderlies and flappers – is that not just what they are? – retains its
dramatic power, as well as firmly putting us in the inter-war period. (I say
firmly, but of course, time passes as the act does.) And yet, a reminder that
the various levels of interpretation are anything but distinct is offered by a
greater keenness of manipulation when it comes to Kundry’s acts: above all,
what she tells Parsifal. She is in turn being manipulated by Klingsor, of
course, but perhaps so many of us are understandably now influenced by feminist
readings, that we feel uncomplicatedly sympathetic. It is salutary to be
reminded that this rose of Hell – the rose very much part of the staging’s
imagery – has, despite her plight, agency of her own. That is surely more
feminist than to consider her purely as a victim. And the similarity of costume
between her and Klingsor, both in Weimar cross-dressing travesty, reinforces
the need both have for each other, the Hegelian master-slave dialectic
reimagined. The final scene remains electric, the unfurling of swastikas and
coming of Bayreuth’s and Germany’s darkest years truly shocking. Judging by the
disgruntled noises from some members of the audience – it should hardly
surprise that ‘conservative’ critics of searching productions would feel
discomfited by a reminder of their ideological kinship – it remains an absolute
necessity too. An interval walk around the outdoor exhibition of Verstummte Stimmen (the ‘silenced voices’
of Jews ill-treated by the Festival) reinforced the point: rightist ‘Wagnerians’
are not merely deluded; they are and always have been extremely dangerous. (Ironically,
the only figure treated unjustly is Wagner himself, in which the questionable
claim that anti-Semitism is expressed in the dramas is trotted out
uncritically.) I could not help but think of the ongoing controversy concerning
Amélie Hohmann’s refusal to release correspondence between Winifred Wagner and
Hitler. Whatever one might think of Katharina Wagner as director, at least she
seems willing to open up the festival to necessary historical criticism.

Which leads me into the third
act, with Herheim’s attack upon – or rather, display, which allows the audience
to attack – the disingenuous New Bayreuth plea, signed by Wieland and Wolfgang,
and displayed on stage, as Wagner himself is hidden behind Parsifal’s childhood
wall, that politics be banished from the Green Hill. (It actually speaks well
of Wolfgang, whatever one may think of many of his acts, that he permitted this
criticism to be staged; he was always, however, a friend to directors, even if
he lacked directorial ability himself.) The post-war period is initially one of
devastation, and improves little, if at all, whatever the mendacious ideology
of the Wirtschaftswunder. Perhaps the
point of ultimate hope comes when a star briefly appears in the sky,
wonderfully touching, though what does it signify? The coming of a (false) messiah?
A simple, childlike pleasure? Nothing that can be put into words? It certainly
rings truer than the gaudy coloured lights that seem to signal Parsifal’s
descent into the realm of the (lifestyle?) guru. If anything, politics seem to
stand still more starkly at the heart of the final scene. Parsifal is
Lohengrin’s father, though the extent to which that is a red herring may be
debated. Here, however, the problematical nature of charismatic leadership
seems to follow on closely, especially from Hans Neuenfels’s production, which
I shall see again soon, as well of course from the precedent of Siegfried. It
is noteworthy that Parsifal is not one of the trio we see at the end,
presumably hastening us to an uncertain future; instead, we find ourselves in
the hands of Gurnemanz, Kundry – no, she does not expire – and a young boy. Or
is he Parsifal, and has the whole drama been a dream, or in the case of its
German historical setting, the ultimate nightmare? There is certainly no solace
to be had from the despicable bickering politicians of the Bundestag, the
Federal Republic’s flag draping Titurel’s coffin, yet Parsifal seems to have
offered at best a dead-end, maybe even a touch of snake oil. (From Carole
Caplin to Blair?) Amfortas, like Siegfried, seems to have gained in dignity
through death. Nihilism, as Nietzsche would doubtless have had it, or Wagner’s
lifelong anarchism, as I would?

Musical performances are more
mixed in quality, though as I have already mentioned, Roth’s Amfortas has
continued to grow in strength. Kwangchul Youn, whom I have previously found a
little dull, exhibited a far stronger musico-dramatic presence, and an intriguingly
ambiguous one. Who is this narrator, and is he to be trusted? Susan Maclean was
perhaps a little too wild on the vocal side. It could hardly be said that her
Kundry is beautiful of voice, and a little more refulgence would not at times
have gone amiss, but there can be no doubting the dramatic commitment of her
portrayal. Thomas Jesatko’s Klingsor is by now perhaps leaning a little too
much towards camp: his first ‘furchtbarer Not’ sounded a little too caricatured
to chill. Again, however, this is very much a stage assumption that one is
unlikely to forget. (Perhaps it is just that I have become too accustomed to
it.) Burkhard Fritz’s Parsifal marked a great improvement upon last year’s
metallic Simon O’Neill. It may not be the most profound account one will hear,
but his tone is secure and possessed of considerable mellifluence. One could
hear pretty much all of his words too, which was certainly not the case with
his Kundry. Smaller parts were cast from strength. Not only Diógenes Randes’s
unearthly Titurel but even the knights and squires shone, and that was not just
a matter of perceptive direction from Herheim with respect to their
presentation as individuals drawn from the mass to be briefly highlighted. Choral
singing, under Eberhard’s direction, was as excellent as we have come to
expect, but that achievement should never be overlooked.

The only significant drawback
related to Philippe Jordan’s conducting. I have heard much worse in Wagner –
and alas must do so regularly in London – but this seemed a work-in-progress in
a less happy sense than Herheim’s production, particularly when considered in
contrast to Daniele Gatti’s work in previous years. Jordan lacked a sense of
ritual, crucial to the first and third acts. That is not a matter of speed, but
of steadiness, of feeling and communicating the inner pulse. Jordan seemed less
an equal partner to Herheim, as Gatti certainly had done, than provider of a
sound-track (ironically, given his father’s appearance on Hans-Jürgen Syberberg’s
film.) There was some interesting highlighting, alla Barenboim, of woodwind lines, though brass, especially during
the opening Prelude, could occasionally be a little shaky. In general, though,
the orchestral playing itself was superb. The interpretation seemed, however,
as though it needed time and experience to settle. For instance, intriguingly Karajan-like
steely moments seemed to bear little relation to the rest of what we heard. I
hope, again, that I am not becoming too wedded to a particular interpretation,
in this case Gatti’s; I do not think I am, given the variety of accounts, both
recorded and in the theatre, I have admired. But it is necessary to remain on one’s guard.

This, I have little doubt,
will prove one of the most necessary opera DVDs since the release on the new
medium of the Boulez-Chéreau Ring. If
only the casting had been a little more consistent, and if only Gatti had still
been conducting. And yet, perhaps one message of this increasingly unsettling
staging is that the search for perfection is not only chimerical but
catastrophic.

First interval, third call, with apologies for the unsteadiness of hand...

9 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I saw this myself for the second time on 29th July, Jordan's conducting was disappointing in the first act but suddenly everything seemed to reach ignition temperature and the rest was mesmerising. I enjoyed it a lot more the second time as I did more homework!

I saw this on Youtube as it's been uploaded, and it's truly an engrossing experience, an extraordinary Parsifal. I found Jordan's conducting acceptable, the singing variable, but it all resulted in a moving and electrifying whole. The swastikas still came as a shocking surprise even though they were often mentioned in reviews - still, well done to the Bayreuth management for allowing so much controversial material though. Proof here that directors can push the boundaries and make a statement without being gratuitous for the sake of it (eg. the nude man Beckmesser pulls out of the sand, masturbating German cultural icons etc in Katharina Wagner's third act Meistersinger).

I checked and I'm pretty sure you were not immortalised in the mirror, you'll be pleased to hear!

Yes, of course he is. Thank you for pointing out the 'deliberate mistake'; it must have been a matter of thinking and typing far too quickly. I shall correct the text, since there is no point in having that stupid mistake preserved for eternity.

I too enjoy the production - despite it being full of "borrowed" ideas and the frequent visual "mishap" - at least to me. It is certainly a better production then many others coming out of Bayreuth and I include Lohengrin in this - the admiration for which bewilders me.

However, I am far from convinced that it serves the text - or the score - as greatly as many seem to suggest.

It is this, and those visual "mishaps" that concern me greatly - together with whether it helps to introduce those new to Wagner and perhaps opera in general.

Indeed, it this latter point that worries me most. Let us be honest, the number of people as familiar with Wagner as the audience here is tiny. Most people find it difficult to find "meaning" in Parsifal as it is - does this production make things any easier for these people? But I suppose this is the ultimate question: should the opera director be serving those "bored" with "straight forward" interpretations or those less cognoscente with Wagner or indeed opera?

One of my fears - and it is not the only one - is that many Bayreuth productions now only serve the highly cognoscente and there is little to introduce those with less "experience". If this is the case, is Bayreuth destroying itself by making it difficult for new audiences to come to it or is Bayreuth now only for cognoscente, bourgeois audience? If so this seems to be to be far from what Wagner intended - or was Nietzsche closer to the truth than we would like to admit?

Wagner was wont to say some rather questionable things about artistic immediacy, often belied by other things he said, still more by his dramas. I am not sure I see the problem with a festival such as Bayreuth, whose audience is unlikely to be composed mainly of those without exposure to the works and to a good number of stagings, in going beyond an introductory level. One of the great strengths of this production, it seems to me, is that it tells 'the story' very well, often surprisingly 'faithfully'; it does not, however, just tell that initial story. Its greatest interest often lies in the interconnection of various levels of narrative and analysis. In any case, I really don't think it is any business of a production, or an artwork, to make anything easier for people, quite the contrary...

Thoughtful response and argument as always Dr Berry although I am not, in this instance, convinced by it.

"I am not sure I see the problem with a festival such as Bayreuth, whose audience is unlikely to be composed mainly of those without exposure to the works and to a good number of staging's, in going beyond an introductory level."

It would depend on what you classify as Bayreuth's primary audience. I am sure that you know, as well as I, that in the 21st Century Bayreuth's primary audience is not in the theater - but on TV, at the cinema and DVD/Blu-ray. Indeed, the Bayreuth management is actively courting this audience. I wonder how many people with only a fleeting interest (the majority of those who see them I would easily argue) are simply bewildered , lost, and more than amused by, what are I am afraid, are “cute” “mice” in Lohengrin, or ar bewildered as to why Klingsor looks like he has escaped from a production of the “Rocky Horror Picture Show”?

Whether rightly or wrongly, many peoples first experience of Wagner – especially outside of Germany given the limited number of Wagner performances in comparison to Puccini for example – will be either TV, or for those with slightly more interest, on DVD. And with the publicity given to Bayreuth it will be these productions many will invest in. More than ever Bayreuth is less for the Wagner “specialist” (or should that read “bored”?) then it is for the Wagner “newbie”.

You may consider my views somewhat “provincial” but I am, I am afraid, a “populist” at heart. To me “art” should be available to everyone. Wagner works on enough levels already to be a “challenge” for those new to him as he is for someone such as I who finds new things in, to take two examples, Tristan and the Ring, both of which I have been listening to since I was 5 years old. or so It is as impossible to “dumb down” Wagner as it is to do the same for Mozart's “Flute”. However, it is possible to make both – even the Flute – inaccessible to a wider audiance. A cleaver (or should that simply read “compliant” or talented?) director can bring new things to a Wagner productions yet still make it accessible to those new to his work – Chéreau or Kupfer for example. I am afraid, as much as I might like it, to some degree the Parsifal in question (it is without doubt visually stunning) – clearly does not do so. In many respects Syberg pursues some of the same themes, yet he does so more firmly within the context of Wagners text and keeps his Parsifal still recognizably “wagners Parsifal” It is thus both an “introductory” work and something beyond this.

“In any case, I really don't think it is any business of a production, or an artwork, to make anything easier for people, quite the contrary...”

I would agree, “good” art does challenge but Wagner does so already – Parsifal especially (you know as well as I that people have spent their entire lives trying to find its “meaning” - from a wide range of perspectives). And if a director wishes to “challenge” people then all the better – but let them do so with “new” work – not by reinventing others.

I would suspect that in some short time in the future the “supremacy” given to the opera director in the last few years will be looked upon with sheer bewilderment. Whereas auteur theory, as arose in Cahiers du Cinéma -may well hold for film – although as I am sure you are aware there is even debate here – opera is not “film” - or at least to me.

Thoughtful response and argument as always Dr Berry although I am not, in this instance, convinced by it.

"I am not sure I see the problem with a festival such as Bayreuth, whose audience is unlikely to be composed mainly of those without exposure to the works and to a good number of staging's, in going beyond an introductory level."

It would depend on what you classify as Bayreuth's primary audience. I am sure that you know, as well as I, that in the 21st Century Bayreuth's primary audience is not in the theater - but on TV, at the cinema and DVD/Blu-ray. Indeed, the Bayreuth management is actively courting this audience. I wonder how many people with only a fleeting interest (the majority of those who see them I would easily argue) are simply bewildered , lost, and more than amused by, what are I am afraid, are “cute” “mice” in Lohengrin, or ar bewildered as to why Klingsor looks like he has escaped from a production of the “Rocky Horror Picture Show”?

Whether rightly or wrongly, many peoples first experience of Wagner – especially outside of Germany given the limited number of Wagner performances in comparison to Puccini for example – will be either TV, or for those with slightly more interest, on DVD. And with the publicity given to Bayreuth it will be these productions many will invest in. More than ever Bayreuth is less for the Wagner “specialist” (or should that read “bored”?) then it is for the Wagner “newbie”.

You may consider my views somewhat “provincial” but I am, I am afraid, a “populist” at heart. To me “art” should be available to everyone. Wagner works on enough levels already to be a “challenge” for those new to him as he is for someone such as I who finds new things in, to take two examples, Tristan and the Ring, both of which I have been listening to since I was 5 years old. or so It is as impossible to “dumb down” Wagner as it is to do the same for Mozart's “Flute”. However, it is possible to make both – even the Flute – inaccessible to a wider audiance. A cleaver (or should that simply read “compliant” or talented?) director can bring new things to a Wagner productions yet still make it accessible to those new to his work – Chéreau or Kupfer for example. I am afraid, as much as I might like it, to some degree the Parsifal in question (it is without doubt visually stunning) – clearly does not do so. In many respects Syberg pursues some of the same themes, yet he does so more firmly within the context of Wagners text and keeps his Parsifal still recognizably “wagners Parsifal” It is thus both an “introductory” work and something beyond this.

“In any case, I really don't think it is any business of a production, or an artwork, to make anything easier for people, quite the contrary...”

I would agree, “good” art does challenge but Wagner does so already – Parsifal especially (you know as well as I that people have spent their entire lives trying to find its “meaning” - from a wide range of perspectives). And if a director wishes to “challenge” people then all the better – but let them do so with “new” work – not by reinventing others.

I would suspect that in some short time in the future the “supremacy” given to the opera director in the last few years will be looked upon with sheer bewilderment. Whereas auteur theory, as arose in Cahiers du Cinéma -may well hold for film – although as I am sure you are aware there is even debate here – opera is not “film” - or at least to me.